• Skip to main content
  • Skip to search
  • Skip to footer
Cadence Home
  • This search text may be transcribed, used, stored, or accessed by our third-party service providers per our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

  1. Community Forums
  2. PCB Design
  3. Rat Line control using Closest Endpoint

Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5
  • Subscribers 164
  • Views 14131
  • Members are here 0
More Content
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Rat Line control using Closest Endpoint

tonyhuffman
tonyhuffman over 12 years ago

I am struggling with the rat lines visibility control using the SiP tools. When I have the "Ratsnest points:" set to "Closest endpoint"  setting is not functioning properly or at least not in our minds at my company. I opened a case over 17 months ago and I was told this is the way the tool is designed to work.

For instance when I finish a route and exit the command I see the rat line extend across the design to a pin to my plating bar when I have a via 100 microns in front of the end point of the route. I just opened another case since this is a later release and I am told the tool functions as designed and nobody else has asked for an enhancement.

I remember back in the day when User Groups were strong and the users would all have a presence to openly discuss issues with the tools in front of the developers. I miss those days because other vendors were responsive to those open forums.

There are many tools on the market both cheaper and more expensive that have the ability to show the rat lines from a route to any of the closest end point (i.e. via, pin, bond finger, etc.) that provide the designer a very helpful guide to plan accordingly at a glance where to route and how to get there in the path of least resistance. These tools also have dynamic rat nest ability as the route endpoint moves or a component is moved. I do not have that using this tool and feel like I am not being heard that this is indeed a problem.

Anyone else have this problem? "Anyone" else?

  • Cancel
  • chads108
    chads108 over 12 years ago

    I also filed a case in December of 2012 and was given the same story as you were "Working as designed".  That being the case (don't necessarily agree with it), I asked for an enhancement to change the wording of "Ratnest Points:" from "Closest endpoint" to "Dangling Etch" or "Hanging Etch", since "Closest Endpoint" is not really how it is working.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • tonyhuffman
    tonyhuffman over 12 years ago

    Do you have a CCR # that you could share? I was again told just now that nobody else has requested an enhancement for this.

     Thanks 

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • chads108
    chads108 over 12 years ago

     CCR# 1084567

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • tonyhuffman
    tonyhuffman over 12 years ago

    It is interesting how stubborn R&D is with calling a spade a spade. They claim the tool works as described... although it clearly does not work as described in the Parameter Description dialog box... so this will be an enhancement request with obviously no promise to even be considered in future releases.

     When I provided them with your case number they told me the cases are not related because all you wanted was to change the command name which would break users scripts.

     When you start a new design, in my case a SCSP, and all you have are bond wires, bond fingers and vias connecting to the BGA balls and you try to strategize how to begin your routing plan and you do not see the actual "closest endpoints" represented by the rats lines it creates a false image.

    The voice of the customer is getting weaker 

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
  • chads108
    chads108 over 12 years ago
    Yes, R&D's interpretation of what I asked for and what they say I asked for are a bit skewed.  I too stressed that the tool is NOT working as described, maybe as designed, but NOT as described.  That is why I asked that, if they are not going to chage the software, they should at a minimum change the wording in the box to something besides "Closest Endpoint" because it clearly is not following that rule.  I did not ask to change the command, only the wording in the box.  They should be able to easliy change the wording, but keep the command behind it the same with no impact on any users scripts.  It is misleading at best.
    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel
Cadence Guidelines

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.

© 2025 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy
  • Cookie Policy
  • US Trademarks
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information